Posted
by
kdawsonon Monday October 08, 2007 @09:54PM
from the package-with-a-live-cd-and-wrap-with-a-bow dept.

An anonymous reader sends in a link to a blog posting by Con Zymaris arguing for competition regulators to force the unbundling of Windows from consumer PCs. The argument takes the form of knocking down one by one the objections raised by "unbundling skeptics."

So many people only use Windows because they think they didn't pay for it. That's why they have such a low expectation of quality - when it crashes they say - Well, I didn't pay for it, so its not like I can ask for my money back."

Unbundle it and let the competition flow. I can see Apple doing a big push for OSX as an aftermarket product. Also, Novell's openSUSE 10.3 is a keeper.

Highly doubt you'll ever see Apple putting OSX out for the x86 market. If they do that, Dell could push out a bunch of mac clones for way cheaper than Apple themselves offer. They wouldn't be as pretty, but it wouldn't be in Apple's interest anyway. The people who want OSX right now have to buy a Mac, too, and that's how they like it. (Well, you can pirate osx86, but you can pirate everything)

It came out a while ago that Apple has OSX running on plain vanilla x86 (non-Apple) hardware. Now look at how many people buy iPods, and compare that to the number who buy cheaper competitors, say Zunes. Apple has reached that "sweet spot" where they can have the best of both worlds - high sales of hardware/software bundles, as well as selling just the OS to those who want it on non-apple hardware.

Dell gets the support headaches, apple gets the $$$. And those who want to "step it up a notch" are still free to buy iMacs, same as they buy iPods.

Yeah, I know you can run OSX on regular old x86 hardware. I got it running on my rig from some torrents of it, but I don't use it.

What I was saying was that I think that they could turn the majority of the potential software only sales they'd be making into full blown hardware/software packages. Someone that wants OSX is usually going to be willing to shell out the extra few hundred bucks or so to get the Apple hardware with it, and those that actually need OSX for whatever reason would then be forced to g

Totally off topic, but I met one of the people who bought a Zune yesterday. It went something like this:Zuner: Hey, where's your Zune accessories?EB Clerk:... Huh?Zuner: Where's your Zune accessories?EB Clerk:... We don't have any.Zuner: You don't have any?EB Clerk: We don't have any.Zuner: I lost my cord.EB Clerk:...Me: Did you try Target? *points down the block*Zuner: Yeah. They don't have anything.Me: Ah. Good luck, man!

Apple clearly rejected the idea of selling their operating system separately a long time ago. In the late 80's there were at least two companies that made Mac clones. Apple refused to sell them the operating system and sued them out of business for copyright infringement.

Only if every man and his dog makes similar hardware to run the same software as all their competitors.

The fact is that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They stated on many occasions in the past that they wanted to usurp the position once held by Sony. I think we can all agree they've pretty much kicked Sony's corporate backside in that regard of recent times.

To elaborate further, apple are a hardware company that uses the uniqueness of their software in order to sell their hardware.

The beauty of apple products is in the user interface. Since no other manufacturer is able (for whatever reason) to match the quality of apples various user interfaces apple is able to monopolise the sales of the hardware required to obtain their "superior" interfaces. If they were to sell OSX (or indeed the iPod OS) to any Tom Dick or Harry with a commodity hardware PC then they would lose their ability to monopolise the sales of the hardware needed to obtain their superior interface.

If you don't think Jobs doesn't understand this then you're a fool.

"If I were Jobs I would spin off the hardware into a separate company."

If you were Steve Jobs then apple would now only be found in the history books alongside the likes of CBM and atari. This is exactly what the Pepsi guy tried to do in the 80's and it almost sent apple bust.

OSX does run on plain vanilla x86 hardware - Apple was doing that a couple of years ago, but the existence of this was only leaked last year, and didn't get much attention. If and when the numbers are right, they'll release it, but not before.

I think Ubuntu would have a very good shot at competing with Windows if users are given a choice...I have been mainly a Windows user for many years, but recently have been using Ubuntu on one of my workstations. Quite frankly, I have been VERY impressed with its usability and the choice of software available for free. Plus the ease at which you can install any additional software is very appealing.
The other day, the integrated sound card on that PC started cutting out and I was dreading having Ubuntu start barking tons of error messages about unknown hardware, etc when I installed a spare sound card I had stuck in a cabinet (older Soundblaster card). But I was pleasantly surprised when the newly installed card started working with no prompts to install or download any drivers!
My wife is big into digital photography and if I could get up to speed with The Gimp, I could totally ditch Windows!

Speaking as someone who has been windows-free (besides games) for three years, I wouldn't bet on linux on the desktop gaining any footholds yet. Hardware support is getting better, and old stuff like your soundblaster is totally covered, but printer and scanner support sucks, and wireless cards often require ndiswrapper. I've attempted linux evangelism in the past, and poor hardware support was usually one of the bigger problems that made people turn back.

Okay so people are saying "Put Ubuntu on it", "No, put OS X on it", "No, put Fedora on it".

Either it comes with an OS bundled, or it doesn't. If it does that OS is getting users in an anti-competitive way, if it doesn't users won't have a clue what to do with their computer.

Also face it; there's no way computers with an OS other than Windows is going to be sold by default, because everyone expects and is familiar with Windows and understands Windows applications.
People freak out enough over Vista, wh

The complete window license is more than paid for by all of the bundled trialware and desktop real estate installed by the OEM. If a manufacturer thought they could get the same cash for a free Linux install they would be all over it. In this case regulation only hurts the consumer on both the long and short term.

The OEM is free to make the same deals regardless of the operating system. For example, they can install free trials for various ISPs, trialware for multi-user games that work over the net, etc. About the only software they would take a hit on is anti-virus software.

not at all, the whole bundling issue was really about Microsoft adding technologies that OEMS had to pay for from independant companies to make them more dependant on Microsoft. The whole point of seperating the OS is that for each feature microsoft added for "free" as a bundle, they tightened the contract terms playing the OEMs against each other when Microsoft was already near monopoly. Now there's nobody to even buy extra piece from without stepping on Bills toes.

I'm okay with bundling, what I hate are those marketing schemes they try to do with the subpar bundling. I had an old friend who brought her new laptop to me for me to take a look and see what I could add to it (I previously had assembled one or two desktops for her a few years ago), she even said that the laptop was with Vista (cause you know, those sales people are bragging about it). I had wished that she consulted me first before buying one and when I had opened it, it was what I had expected.512MB of R

I was in Future Shop this weekend with one of my daughters and her boyfriend. From the conversations I heard, a lot of people don't want Vista.

If her laptop can take a second drive, its cheaper to install a second drive and linux than to buy an XP retail license. She can then run Windows in a virtual machine right on the linux desktop. (oh the irony or funning Windows in a window).

The ideal situation is where every PC vendor must sell the operating system as a paid option for the PC. This helps people decide if they really want to pay for it, and doesn't force many people to pay for software they are going to rip out anyway. Selling a bare PC with both Windows and Linux on separate media is bad for the consumer, bad for the OEM (more tech support calls, etc), and so forth.

I don't buy it. John Doe is more likely to think that the PC and the OS can't be seperated. He wouldn't consider Windows free just as he wouldn't consider the USB ports free.
Anyways, Windows XP does not crash unless you use faulty drivers or it's infected with malware. Both things are just not MSs fault.

> "Unbundling won't happen - when sheeple buy a computer, they expect to have a fully functional thing that can surf the "Interweb" and "process a word", and "sheet a spread".

Case in point: I encountered an irate phone caller because the version of Microsoft Office with her mac was only a trial version. She didn't like this, and ended up filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau in spite of the fact that the computer in question clearly stated that it came with a trial version.

... and linux does all that out of the box. All the distros I've tested automatically discovered and configured my internet connection, and are certainly more "fully functional" than any box that comes with Windows pre-installed. Multiple office suites, and now with click-and-install mp3 and dvd players, virtual machines (so you can run Windows where it belongs - in a window), etc.

> "I would think that if Linux was that much better than Windows, that consumers would demand Linux powered PCs. If you build it, they will come."

Most people don't even know about the possibility of alternatives. To them, a PC is any computer that runs Windows, same as, for a long time, the Internet was Internet Explorer or AOL.

The cost of an OEM Windows license is a large portion of the cost of a new machine, compared to any time in the past. For the cost of Windows and Office, you can buy 2 or 3 computers with no OS, and install linux. the problem is, the consumer is not given a choice, so we don't know how many would take the opportunity.

Since that choice never happens, software developers develop for the Windows platform, ensuring lock-in.

Of course, now that Novell's openSUSE can run Windows in a window in a VM [slashdot.org], there's more reason to buy a new machine with linux, then move your old copy of XP or 2k to a virtual machine on your new box, rather than paying the Microsoft tax a second time (and yes, you can move your license to your new hardware, despite what Microsoft tries to FUD. Just make sure you remove it from your old hardware at the same time).

Most people don't even know about the possibility of alternatives. To them, a PC is any computer that runs Windows, same as, for a long time, the Internet was Internet Explorer or AOL.

You miss the point. Buy a thousand motherboards, chips and cases, put Linux onto them, then walk into computer stores and sell them. There's nothing that precludes you from selling Linux PCs of your own brand.

Surely, someone could sell Linux PCs, preloaded off the Internet, or even through a catalog. At one time, Michael Dell built PCs in his dorm room and sold them over a catalog. Instead of trying to get the government to force Mr. Dell what to sell, why can't you sell what you think should be sold.

Please, spare me the excuses. Microsoft has no monopoly power over you, if you sell Linux powered PCs.

Actually, I think you're missing the point - competition only works when there is no pre-existing monopoly that got there via illegal means.

We depend on the government to step in to protect us from predators who use illegal means to gain control of a market, same as we depend on them, via police and firemen, for local protection from robbers and fire.

Extreme situations call for extreme measures - unbundling sales of the OS isn't anywhere near extreme. To turn your argument on its head - if Windows is s

"The craziest part is, you obsess over Dell PCs, and Dell's are the biggest stock part PCs of them all. They don't do anything special - stock motherboards, stock CPUs, stock graphics cards. There's nothing Dell puts into a PC that you could not put into yours when you sell it."

All my PCs are self-built (laptops excepted). Been like that for years and years. I have never owned a Dell or a Gateway.

"There's absolutely no reason a consumer could not benefit from that offering, and its not Microsoft's fault that you Linux people are too big of pussies to actually sell your own offerings."

Actually, now that Christmas is coming, I plan to give away a few hard disk/openSUSE install combos as small presents. I know a few people who are running windows on hardware thats 2-3 years old, and could use both the extra disk space, and the stability of linux. They'll be able to continue running Windows via a VM (no longer a need to dual-boot) until they get used to the new setup.

There's tons of Windows users out there who are only a hard disk away from running linux. They get to keep all their old data, they don't have to shell out big bucks for the latest bloatware, etc.

If every linux user did this for just 2 people this Christmas, Microsofts' stranglehold on the market would be over in a year.

Nope, you don't need everyone in the Linux camp handing out hard drives like Scientologists hand out Dianetics. ... Really, all you need to do is set up a Linux PC company and run it kinda like the way Apple does..

Did you read that article at all? It says, the proportional cost of bundled software climbed from 5% to 50%

Ah, but what's the proportional value of the software? See, you need to think more like a salesperson. Cost is irrelevant. It's the value that is added. And, look at all the value Windows adds to a PC..

a) You have Direct X 10, for games. And, there are a ton of games for Windows.b) You.NET, for business applications developmentc) You have a pretty good web browser. Yeah, IE has its flaws, but it

> Ah, but what's the proportional value of the software? See, you need to think more like a salesperson. Cost is irrelevant. It's the value that is added. And, look at all the value Windows adds to a PC.

First, cost is not irrelevant. Value is important. Granted, Windows comes with a certain unique feature set. But seriously, you are not comparing that value to a Linux desktop distro that has just about every software a regular user would need? The pieces that are missing are mostly because there is a monopoly OS out there (Third party proprietary software, driver, formats).

a) You have Direct X 10, for games. And, there are a ton of games for Windows.

Hard to argue. But without the monopoly status, DirectX cannot maintain as much lead. It still is better than OpenGL alternatives though.

b) You.NET, for business applications development

Not compelling. Too many other alternatives now.

c) You have a pretty good web browser. Yeah, IE has its flaws, but it works pretty good for most people. That is, I can go to the baseball site, get the scores, and it works.

Every desktop OS now comes with an browser. IE works for most people because that is all they know. Once they understand taking advantage of FireFox plugins, they never go back. That has been the case with every IE user who has watched me use my browser more than a few minutes.

d) You have interfaces to a whole bunch of consumer appliances, from digital cameras and video players, and more.

So do Linux distros. Windows market status attracts driver support from appliance makers, but not as much of an advantage of the software architecture per se.

e) Vista has a really cool sound model that I am eager to play with.

I don't know much about it. I will skip that.

f) Unicode (UTF-16) is built in from the ground up. NTFS stacks up well against Reiser and ExtN for most applications. Remote Desktop and Terminal Services for Windows work really well...

Don't know about UTF-16 enhancements. RDP is a good but remoting X and Linux Terminal Server work quite well too. Don't forget though that to have these features you have to pay quite a bit more too. Sure, but NTFS is good enough. But good enough is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what they offer to justify 95% market share and making computers cost significantly higher when they barely manage to go up against free alternatives. I expect 6 billion in productions costs to do a lot more.

And this is not a new argument. This has all played out before. When IE won the browser wars, MS froze all further development on it (the team was disbanded as I recall), after all it made no business sense to spend any more money on it. The only reason that we even have an updated IE7 is because of FireFox. That is the price of a monopoly.

Its also a lot easier to create a master hard drive image that can be installed across various hardware configurations, since there is no WGA, activation, or tying to the installed hardware to generate keys, and you can resize the image once its on the hard drive.

His use of "laissez-faire" as something other than "free" or "open" is simply bizarre.

His repeated insistence that Microsoft somehow got its monopoly dishonestly wears thin by the end of the piece -- even though I agree with him. (I once earnestly wished for Microsoft to eat IBM's lunch; I won't make that mistake again.)

I remember when the "real" computer stores looked the way videogame stores do today, with separate sections for each platform, and woe betide you if you picked up the wrong version of M.U.L.E. or Choplifter. I'd like to see an article that spells out in detail how we ended up with the Microsoft monoculture.

Sure us nerds can sit in our ivory tower and say that people would like Linux (or other alternatives)because they won't know the difference. But the truth is: people don't want to do backflips for an operating system in order to make it work the way they want. Windows just plain works for the vast majority of people. I guarantee that the unbundling of Windows from PCs in the EU will have no effect on Microsoft's sales just because people will use what they are comfortable with.

I'm not sure... I've been able to get my girlfriend and sister to use my linux system without problem. What needs to be done is to focus on out-of-the-box usability. Turn it on, jump through a minimal number of hoops, and never worry about it again. Kinda like Macs do. We need to hide the "magic" of config files, the different system services, and the rubble from the various wars (KDE vs. GNOME, RPM vs. Debian packages, etc). Windows has done this very well, and it's time we caught up.

In deed. I agree with the hiding of all the things that make Linux so daunting. And congratulations on bringing your sister and girlfriend into the light. But not all people have people like you by their side every step of the way. What if someone who really likes music but knows nothing about computers decides to try Fedora (or some other flavor of Linux with an easy install process) and is wondering why all their MP3s and WMAs aren't playing in Amarok? Who will help them?

well, when I try to play WMAs in Ubuntu, I get a message asking if I want it to search the repositories and automatically download and install the necessary packages. It explains the difference between open and proprietary, and prior to install has you accept an agreement that you are using it for "research purposes." Quick and painless.

For sure comfort level is part of it but the other sticking point is office apps; word, excel, outlook, etc. The documents are "stuck" in Microsoft's format... tough to advocate switching OSes when the "work" is in Microsoft formats.

Microsoft should give up the ghost on desktop/consumer OSes and just port their office suite over to *nix.

I've been saying for years that Microsoft should either:
1. Make Windows an open kernel for people to distribute their own flavors of. (Windows as a standard instead of an OS)
2. Make Windows into a closed-source desktop environment built on the Linux kernel. That way anyone can have Windows and/or Linux (KDE, Gnome) running on the same machine without the multiple partition bullshit we all have to go through if we want dual boot.

It seems to me that this is a bad idea for two reasons.The first is that it would require vendors to ensure compatibility at all levels of two different configurations and have two sets of support. Support and warranties aren't free and the cost would be passed on to the consumer either directly as vendors recover the costs or indirectly to to crappy kit if the vendors fail to properly spend the money in the first place.Secondly, it assumes that Linux has a god given right to exist on the mainstream desktop independent of its merits and that Windows is the inevitable winner unless someone stacks the deck. I take the long view and I think that in the end the platform that provides the best value will win and that the market will do its thing without the regulators taking sides. It might take 10 more years, but as computers evolve into things we can't even imagine (wearable? pervasive and ubiquitos with a universal network maybe?) that Windows will take it's place in the history books as will Linux.

Attempting to stop a convicted monopoly from dealmaking that excludes competitors or allows them to collect money per PC regardless of the OS isn't a matter of regulators "taking sides". It is stopping said monopoly from abusing its position further, and actually giving competition a chance to thrive in an area despite the monopoly's best efforts to exclude.

there were other operating systems, ones that ran on x86 hardware. they were better than windows, too. the company that created one of them desperately tried to sell dual-boot systems (they had an excellent boot manager, for which i left the OS installed long after it had any relevance). as far the argument that they will be gone in 10 years, i find it highly unlikely; the barriers to entry are too many.

why didn't they get a manufacturer to ship dual-boot systems with their OS? because microsoft's OS licensing policy forbids it, it not by outright language, then by punitive cost measures. this was part of the focus of the department of justice's antitrust suit. as a matter of fact, even beige box companies used to force a copy of windows on individuals who purchased an entire system. microsoft's corporate policy is to force the entire world, if possible, to have only one choice. excuse me, let me correct myself; one choice in several flavors (think all the different vista incarnations that will be paraded in front of any future antitrust action as evidence of innovation and variety).

Comparing the cost of Software to Hardware is fundamentally flawed. They are two distinct components of a product. Each component holds their own value irrespective of another. For example, Adobe CS3 could easily cost 300% of the hardware that you bought to run it on, but that doesn't take away from the value of Adove CS3. The same goes for Windows. The only reasonable argument that the author makes is that you can "get the same functionality from Linux for free". At least this argument makes sense logicall

I have observed that with the infrequent release of Windows versions, people are buying more PCs with the same OS installed. While they generally dispose of the old PC in some way, they have ultimately re-puchased the same software license that should have been transferred from their old PC.What should be happening is the PC maker should offer the OEM software, but the user should be buying the one and only seat that they want of Windows. No multiple purchases necessary. This CLEARLY serves the interests

I think in the end that Microsoft calculates the "repurchases" into their OEM cost, so technically you're not (always) paying for multiple installs... That is, if they ask 5$ for an OEM (which is probably not far from the truth right now) for -every- purchase, or 10$ the first time, transferable, well, its the same thing unless you buy 3 PCs... Even if you purchase separately:Looking on Tiger Direct, an OEM (that is, tied to hardware) license of Windows is almost -exactly- half the price of a non-OEM one. S

I read tfc but I guess I'm stupid. I'm all for unbundling, but why can't I pick an OS and have Dell/Hp/whoever install it for me before shipping? I don't think the avarage consumer wants to install their own OS.

You're not stupid. The average consumer doesn't want to install their own OS. The average consumer cannot install their own OS. The author of the post makes several assumptions that the average consumer is just as much of a tech-loving, curious prosumer as he is. They aren't.

As most of us know, installing an OS - any OS - properly for a given piece of hardware can be complicated. Getting the best possible drivers (which is not always the latest version), setting all the internal OS settings to appropriate ones for the computer being sold is a complex process. I am aware that many commodity PC makers do a shitty job of setting up the software for a PC, but they DO set it up a certain way when they make that disk image.

(if the computer is a gaming PC, the OS should be set to be efficient, if it is a work PC, it should be pre-installed with running anti-spyware and virus programs, ect)

SO...there would be recovery CDs, but everything would be on the new computer's hard drive.

When you start up the new pc, you would be taken to a screen where you can choose to

1. PAY the OEM price by credit card for Windows. The partition containing Windows preinstalled, a clean disk image all ready to go with appropriate drivers, is made the primary partition. The other partitions are deleted from the drive index table. There could easily be different options : Vista Home, Premium, XP, ect, and a version of Windows loaded with other programs in a bundle. You could either pay directly if the PC is connected to the internet, or, when you bought the PC you would have been given an activation number to type in.

2. Pay nothing, have the Ubuntu partition made primary
3. Pay nothing, wipe the disk so that you can install your own OS.

A small entry would be added to the BIOS Flash once you pay for Windows successfully. That way, if you have to use the Windows recovery disk, the PC already knows if you have paid for the software or not.

This is an absolutely yummy idea. I don't see this adding any financial or time complexity to the already complex task OEM's face of building out thousands of machines each day. And then the tens (perhaps even hundreds) of customers every month who want linux get to install it too - and they get to bless the average technophobic user with a stripped PC, hunting for drivers... Yeah. Awesome.Anyone who actually thinks that linux is ready for the desktop needs to spend more time with the average computer user.

It isn't. No matter how you try to cut it - geekiness is ingrained into the culture.

Look! This text is on a different line.

I used <br> tags.

Slashdotters are so used to doing things in a technical way that they disregard the very real usability issues that surround Open Source. If I put text on a different line in this textbox I should not have to know or care about the br tag. This is FOSS's greatest barrier to adoption in a nutshell.

I'm assuming here that the average idiot is too... well, idiotic to realize they can download a distro and install it themselves. Instead, they'll do what they always do and just spend cash to solve their problem by going to Best Buy or Radio Shack...

While I really do love Linux (need to get round to trying the BSD's, etc), I can see that sort of situation being actually bad for Linux. "Oh, whats this 'Xandros/SuSE/RHEL/Linspire/etc' - its cheaper than that Windows software box over there, I'll get this instead!" They either pay the store something like $50 bucks to install it for them or are somehow able to do it themselves - "Oh wow, the interface is different!" and "Oh, shit. I can't figure out how to do what I want - Linux sucks, I should have just coughed up the change for Windows!"

Also, the retail stores might find a way to make all the Linux distros more expensive than Windows even before people get out of the store. $50 bucks for the distro itself, $50 to $75 for Geek Squad to install it for you, and another $50 to $100 for 3 years tech support over the phone. That doesn't even include people getting home and spending time (time=money) to re-learn how to use half the GUI (only because things aren't in the same place) or paying tech support a wad of cash to learn how. Anybody that goes through that will tell their friends that its not only cheaper but also easier to just buy Windows.

These articles that talk about how Microsoft is shoved down our throats read more like Geek fan fiction than actual good policy. Its as if the writers fantasize about a way to show people Linux is the one true Operating System, and the only way is to take away the convenience of using Windows. No manufacturer is FORCED to bundle Microsoft XP or Vista with their hardware. They have the option of not including an operating system at all, or also selling Linux versions. The reason this is not more prevalent is that there is no demand for it. If there were wide demand for pre-installed Linux boxes, they would be out there all over the place. I can recall quite a few Linux boxes that were sold as ultra-low cost alternatives to Windows boxes and they failed in sales quite badly. One of them that comes to mind was sold at ALDI.
Microsoft may have unethical tactics, but to force changes on the way computer manufacturers bundle and sell their equipment is an exercise best left to communist and socialist countries where the government knows better than the consumers and businesses in the market place. There is no barrier to computer sales that I can see. If I wanted to, I could sell a director_mr brand computer tomorrow. BUT BUT no one would buy it you might say. That is because the demand for computers is being met adequately by the marketplace. If you really think there is demand for pre-installed Linux boxes then sell them, and become the next Dell or Gateway or HP. Forcing Dell or Gateway or HP to be what YOU want them to be by changing the laws and making them become that is VERY inefficient and foolish.

I have one reason he left out...The US government fucks up almost everything it touches. Especially while being run by the current Court Jester. I want them to stay away from my computer, even if that means it comes out of the box with Windows on it and Balmer delivers it in person.

I also disagree with his argument that the cost of Windows makes up 35 percent of the cost of a PC. He must be another one of those glue sniffing idiots that thinks OEMs pay retail prices for Windows. Even on a bargain baseme

If Windows had a package system like rpm for its internal parts. If you're setting up a server, don't install the gui. If it's a gaming machine, don't bother with all the database stuff. For a development machine, install everything. Windows would actually be a lot more interesting and useful.

Comments here seem to somehow imply that manufacturers should want to include a copy of Windows in some fashion with a PC that the customer can choose to pay the OEM price for. They would - seemingly - pay Microsoft for this.

Well, that isn't how it works. The reason the OEM price is less than the retail price is because the computer manufacturer put Windows on the machine and tailored it specifically for that environment and what not. They also get to absorb the tech support load. You do not get to call Microsoft and run up their support expenses with an OEM license. Instead, you call the computer manufacturer because part of the OEM deal is they handle support calls.

So, without the ability to control how Windows is installed on the computer it is unlikely the manufacturer is going to give you OEM tech support or an OEM price. Microsoft isn't going to give you the OEM price and take the support call load. So this would require people to pay retail price for Windows and go to Microsoft for support.

Microsoft would love to do this. The OEM deal is in the consumers and manufacturers best interest and not all that great for Microsoft. Except for perhaps reinforcing the dominance of Windows which is unlikely to be dimenshed any time soon. Microsoft would experience 2x or 3x their current revenue should this happen.

Quite an interesting topic, but I prefer arguments that are contrary to the position opposite of that which counters the arguments against unbundling Windows. Or to put it another way: for unbundling windows. I know it's not quite a triple negative, but it's very unclear and I see this type of writing all the time in slashdot head-lines. If you're against someone who is not for undoing something, then just say you're for undoing something, or against doing something. Reduce it to its logical minimum. Why not use "Countering The Arguments For Keeping Windows Bundled", or "Countering the Bundled Windows Apologists"?

A minor aspect of the article's proposal that I like is the requirement that
the manufacturer include an MS Windows recovery CD. Some manufacturers don't do that, even though you are paying for MS Windows. The last HP machine I bought had no CD. Instead, it had a hidden "backup partition". That's okay if you just want to reinstall the system after it has been corrupted, but useless if the drive dies or you decide to replace it with a larger one.

Why does every unbundling argument always seem to boil down to forcing end users to install the OS from scratch? An unbundled option can be:

1. Preinstalled Windows2. Preinstalled Linuxor3. Blank Machine

It only needs to be another line-item option in the system configuration. OEM blows the correct image and includes a Windows CD + Sticker for Windows customers, and a Linux CD for Linux ones, and nothing for the blank customers.

Come on, this is trivial. Just have the assembly tech plug the drive into a fixture, hit the correct image choice, and bingo-bango, it's ready.

My solution: Every computer retail store should inform how much of the price is Windows tax. For example: $500, where $150 is Windows Vista Bangtastic. And you should be able to choose not to accept the licence when you buy it, and they will remove the activation CD, so you can't activate it.

God this is stupid! This isn't about lack of choice, it's about whiny nerds upset that the world doesn't work the way they want it to. What's the problem now? Linux adoption not fast enough for you? I've got two computers on my desk, neither of which have windows on them, and neither of which EVER had Windows on them. There is no need to "unbundle" Windows from computers because you can already get computers without Windows.

This won't harm Microsoft, it will harm PC manufacturers and resellers, who will bear the entirely of the market disatisfaction with the unbundling. People will still buy Windows, only now they will be paying Microsoft full price for it.

The big hurdle you whiners need to get over is that Windows has 90% market share because people have voluntarily chosen to buy Windows or PC with bundled Windows. It may not be the choice you would have made, but that give you no excuse to government and its police to impose your will on others. IF this is that important to you, get off your high horse and go out and buy a computer without Windows on it. Sheesh.

It's about opening up the market to other competitors. Another Beos? Another OS/2? There is no reason why there should be only two OS available for computers, one of them only managing to still stick around because it's free (in both senses).

There is no operating system market. Unbundling windos is about re-creating that market. Innovation (not only in features!) only happens in a free market. That's what this is all about.

These companies, or their representatives, are welcome to offer Dell, et al, deals for loading their OS in place of Windows.

I don't get personal often on/. but with all due respect, are you really such a complete moron that you don't get it? No company offering a PC operating system has any chance of survival. They won't even get the venture capital to get going. Thanks to the exclusive OEM deals that MS has made all around, there is simply no way you will ever get enough market share to recoup your initial investment.

This is not about what has more value to the customer, because the customer doesn't ever have that choice. Asi

It is even easier than that. Manufacturers should be even allowed to PRELOAD MS-Windows and not include any other OS, if they want. As long as it is UNLICENSED. If the customer wants to ACTIVATE the preloaded MS-Windows, let them pay for it separately (for the activation code), and not through the hardware vendor.

In this way, people who want MS-Windows have it. They have it quickly. They have it easily. They have it customized by the OEM. But people who do not want (or need) it, do not have to pay for it and are not pressured into it by the OEM. They don't have to order "special" models.

And that option is still open. Vendors can (and in my opinion, should) offer a default choice of Windows. But they should also offer the option to get an unbundled system.

This is exactly what I came in to say. If a mostly-Microsoft vendor is worried that people will be "confused" (an oft-cited argument for bundling), then make the Windows OS a default choice. Let the people who don't want to buy it change it to something else.

More importantly, let people see what they are paying for. If it costs $x for an O

This is interesting- because a similar trick could be done with any Linux distro as well.

But here is where we get into the Catch-22: no bundleware vendor wants to build a product for a platform that has a small install base. Linux's install base cannot grow if it cannot compete. It cannot compete if people can buy a PC with MS-Windows for a "nominal price", which they can only because bundleware is made available for MS-Windows.

The problem is that the article singles out Microsoft as the only one that should be unbundled.Apple should have to sell computers without an OS too.Also where do you start to draw the line with computers, pdas, cellphones as the lines start to blur?Unbundling the OS makes a computer just hardware that can do very little on its own. A computer manufacturer also can't support every single OS out there.There are definite practices of Microsoft that need to be curtailed but unbundling only Windows (even unbund

The problem is that the article singles out Microsoft as the only one that should be unbundled.
Apple should have to sell computers without an OS too.
Also where do you start to draw the line with computers, pdas, cellphones as the lines start to blur?

There is a very simple answer to your question. You draw the line when a company becomes a convicted monopoly (like Microsoft is, in this case). If Apple had 90% of the market and had hardware that supported competing OS's, and was ruled a monopoly, then s

Of course they can. All they have to do is make their hardware work to a set of common standards. That's why so many different operating systems work on different hardware already, the manufacturers' made there hardware open and follow standards and guidelines. It's pretty simple really the only reason they don't is they are producing a shitty product or they are lazy. There is a 3rd reason that they are deliberately making their hardware uninteroperable but that is another issue.

The Mac is no longer a proprietary platform and it is certainly not a cell phone. In fact, other OS's run on Apple hardware. However if you want Apple hardware you still have to pay for the OS. I think there would be a serious issue if the roles were reveresed.

From the Article:
"What about the Apple Mac? Shouldn't that also have the OS X operating system unbundled?
No, for two reasons. Firstly, the Apple Mac is a product with hardware and software from a single vendor. If Microsoft wanted to sell a Windows PC that it itself made, then this also wouldn't be a problem. It would substantially tick off Microsoft's hardware OEM partners, but wouldn't be a problem from a competitiveness perspective. In fact, if that happened, there would be a substantial acceleration of hardware partners adopting alternative platforms, like Linux.
Secondly and more crucially, the Apple Mac doesn't have 95% market share, and the immense leverage that such market share delivers unto Microsoft. If Microsoft Windows only had 5% of the market, then there would be no pressure to unbundle it from consumer PCs. We wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place."

Imagine if Microsoft finally takes a critical blow leaving a vacuum for Apple to dominate. What's Apple shipping for hardware these days? Intel? Sorry AMD. What about wireless chipset? Video cards? Would be great to be vendor their choice but would suck to be the loser. Okay, fine. You'll just say that Apple will suddenly have a change of heart and allow consumers to choose the hardware. Um, ya.Since MS makes IE for Mac, do they have the right to complain that Apple bundles Safari? What about Real?

I guess it opens another can of worms: what constitutes your own branded OS? If Dell buys the rights to use the Windows source code, makes some superfluous changes, and calls it DellOS... can they bundle it? Are you going to start regulating the source of the OS source code now?There are better ways to break the MS monopoly if you are so inclined - break off the company's OS division, for instance. Or, force the company to license its code. Or, split MS into two companies with identical product offerings. E

actually, the evidence seems to suggest that advanced users of windows have a more difficult time switching than novice users. A novice is used to clicking through menus and trying to figure out the buttons, whereas a more experienced user already knows shortcuts and practiced movements. So, given a stable install and a novice-friendly distro, grandma may actually be more successful with Linux than the experienced gamer
just my $0.02
would make a great study, any graduate students in need of a thesis?

actually, the evidence seems to suggest that advanced users of windows have a more difficult time switching than novice users. A novice is used to clicking through menus and trying to figure out the buttons, whereas a more experienced user already knows shortcuts and practiced movements.

I'm constantly running into people with expensive laptops or years of usage who truly want an appliance PC, and have settled into an uneasy compromise of knowing just what to do to get predictable effects, like reading email. These are people who call the computer a 'hard drive' or think that IE is 'the internet' because that's what it says in the start menu, often professionals who rely on computers, often in their 50's. The mere mention of changing to another operating system truly freaks them out, because they've invested enough braintime to not be so afraid of the damn thing. Even using a Mac is threatening because they 'don't know where anything is' [translation: where the start menu is, etc.].

Computers badly fail the 'appliance' test. I tell them that they should learn to use it, the same way a carpenter has to learn a table saw or plumb line, but get chagrined shrugs.

So, next week, I'm starting an afterschool computer club at my kids' school. They've just moved the whole district to Fedora via the Linux Terminal Server Project [ltsp.org], w00t, no hardware replacement costs in my tax bill, so it's just getting interesting here in this small community, there's hope for the kids, more likely they'll convert the old farts by importing linux into the home.